Dawkins, Gorilla's, and Fence's

While surfing through "YouTube" I found a piece that just about blew me away. Richard Dawkins, (I hear he has a Phd) was telling the world about gorilla rights. Don't take my word for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTZnBQ3aWVk Mr. Dawkins tells us that "A couple centuries ago racism would have been taken for granted", but that now..."We have grown out of that". How did Mr. Dawkins discover that leaving racism behind is considered grouth? Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for "Treat others as you would be treated". What I'd like to know is where did Mr. Dawkins (and for that matter a large chunk of America), get the idea that different is better?

First there was slavery, now a few hundred years ago white people owning black people was the law of the land. The Supreme Court said it was okay, the law said it was okay, heck a sizable portion of the population thought it was okay. Then slavery was declared illegal.

Next there was prohibition, booze was legal, then booze became illegal, then booze became legal again.

Finally there is Abortion, prior to Roe v Wade (1973) it was illegal for a woman to kill her unborn child, after 1973 it was legal for a woman to do so.

Granted that these three topics are a little bit in your face, but a long time ago I tried subtle when trying to make a point, and I found out that subtle just don't work. So let me see if I can't begin to draw these thoughts together. Slavery was good and legal, then slavery became bad and illegal. Next booze was good and legal, then it became bad and illegal, then it became good and legal again, finally killing babies was bad and illegal, then killing babies became good and legal. Now what is happening in all this? We are changing our mind, that's what we are doing. What I want to draw your attention to is BOOZE. Because that's where we do a complete turn-around. Slavery was good, then it was bad. Abortion was bad, then it was good. But with prohibition, booze was good, then bad, and now it's good again. So today's point is this...if we were wrong about booze, how do we know we are not wrong about the other two? Or anything else we have changed our minds on? In other words, how do we know we have made a mistake, when it is US that defines right and wrong? By what standard do we judge right and wrong, good and evil? Remember, our laws are based on our concept of right and wrong...right?

Which brings us back to Mr. Dawkins, who tells us that "Human beings are not just like great apes, they are great apes." (emphasis in the original). We are then told we should not erect a wall between Humans, and gorillas, and cabbages (because we all come from the same source), but "We have rather a continuum, there is a sliding scale, from gorillas and chimpanzee's being very close to us, and cabbages being a very long way away, and theres no reason why we should erect a wall, we should erect a fence, at any particular place." However, he is right on target when he say's "It is very hard to make a purely scientific case for conserving any particular species". And now ladies and gentelmen, here is where we see Intellectual Schizophrenia rear it's ugly head. Mr. Dawkins is a card carrying evolutionist, a Darwinist to the bone, as seen in the just released movie Expelled (No Intelligence Alowed

Thank you for your time